221–230 of 883 posts
1. This ethics guidance is bad because it limits, or even censors, scientific investigation related to socially sensitive topics.
2. Social science has a reproducibility crisis and is mostly useless (a viewpoint commonly expressed in response to other articles).
Does anyone hold both of these opinions, or is it just different people talking at different times?
I think that most of these types of guidelines and rules are written with good intent, but intent is what ruins good science. Science, as a method, works when you have a hypothesis, but when that hypothesis isn't supported by your findings you can't just discard the findings and go "well I'm still pretty sure I was right anyway." If you find something you disagree with to be true, that makes the science even more imp…
This has garnered quite a lot of reactions from the comments. I'd like to ask a genuine question about this, from the perspective of assuming that Nature is acting in good faith about this. Let's say someone has calculated the polygenic scores (PGS) of Heteronormativity, meaning that a model, can predict with a decent level of accuracy that someone will or will not be straight from their DNA. This, in an ideal world,…
Does it matter? Neither fetuses nor abstract population groups are moral agents, only individual people are. Therefore, selective abortion of any kind (that does not cause potential offspring to be worse of) is morally neutral act.
Most of this seems wildly unenforceable at a practical level. And yes that's all really bad and non-secular and society will be harmed because people, even with the best intentions, will try to filter facts. The two terminology clarifications they make I don't mind though: sex vs gender and race vs biological lineage. I think society would be better off with very clear and precise usage of those terms. I mentally fli…
As you've identified, they've tied themselves into knots with inconsistencies and hypocritical positions. There is no logic to be found here, only insanity masquerading as such. Luckily for everyone else, the scientific method will remain, even if it is temporarily suppressed.
This has garnered quite a lot of reactions from the comments. I'd like to ask a genuine question about this, from the perspective of assuming that Nature is acting in good faith about this. Let's say someone has calculated the polygenic scores (PGS) of Heteronormativity, meaning that a model, can predict with a decent level of accuracy that someone will or will not be straight from their DNA. This, in an ideal world,…
Are you sure about that? We have a pretty good way of predicting the sex of the fetus and somehow our misogynistic and sexist society doesn't have a mass problem of aborting females.
>So, in this case, where we have an oppressed group that can be oppressed further, is knowledge better than ignorance?
Abortion is oppression?
Today, in most regions, you can abort a fetus for any reason ... even terrible reasons. Are you advocating for abortion controls so that abortion is only done for the 'right' reasons?
>I want to make one thing clear, this is not a silly thought experiment. This is very possible right now with the advent of biobanks, GWAS tooling, and machine learning.
If it is possible today, where are those mass abortions?
>I presume that most of you would agree that releasing this information for anyone to know would have negative consequences, and should maybe be controlled.
You assume you can hide this information. Why do you assume that?
And no, I don't agree that it should be controlled.
Yet, people can be harmed indirectly. For example, research may — inadvertently — stigmatize individuals or human groups. It may be discriminatory, racist, sexist, ableist or homophobic. It may provide justification for undermining the human rights of specific groups, simply because of their social characteristics. [..] Advancing knowledge and understanding is a fundamental public good. In some cases, however, potent…
Moreover, how can any of these be enforced, and by whom? At least you know who your church authority figures are and who to criticize. Where do we even start if we let Twitter outrage decide whether science is potentially harmful and should be allowed or not? This is worse than religion because it’s pretending to be rational. And many many people will be fooled.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Science exists in a perpetual state of being supported or challenged by evidence. If the clergy ("credible expert", Nature) make it impossible to challenge the orthodoxy ("established science") then it _is_ dogma. By being a "believer" in science as you've laid it out, you aren't believing in science as a process, but science as an institution.
>Science exists in a perpetual state of being supported or challenged by evidence One problem with that. Some sciences, particularly soft or social sciences cross broadly into culture and "ways of life". There are certain things today that cannot be questioned without getting shouted down or deplatformed. So challenging the current widely held scientific facts can be career ending.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> research may — inadvertently — stigmatize individuals or human groups. It may be discriminatory, racist, sexist, ableist or homophobic. It may provide justification for undermining the human rights of specific groups, simply because of their social characteristics. Do these people think there are motherfucking X-Men living among us who we want to save from stigma? These kinds of statements read like the authors don…
What do you mean by “meaningfully equal?” It strikes me as a tricky set of not always terribly related concepts. As a Christian I believe all human beings are equal in inherent dignity. As an American who likes the Anglo-American legal tradition I believe that all people ought to be equal before the law, even though that’s observably not the case. As someone who has performed hundreds of tech interviews and worked in…
I'm having difficulty reconciling these two opinions: 1. This ethics guidance is bad because it limits, or even censors, scientific investigation related to socially sensitive topics. 2. Social science has a reproducibility crisis and is mostly useless (a viewpoint commonly expressed in response to other articles). Does anyone hold both of these opinions, or is it just different people talking at different times?
Yet, people can be harmed indirectly. For example, research may — inadvertently — stigmatize individuals or human groups. It may be discriminatory, racist, sexist, ableist or homophobic. It may provide justification for undermining the human rights of specific groups, simply because of their social characteristics. [..] Advancing knowledge and understanding is a fundamental public good. In some cases, however, potent…
The robots in that world were hard-coded to be incapable of injury humans, and the mind-reading robot considered emotional damage “injury”. Of course the robot got into a paradox where it had to hurt someone’s feelings, so it just…died.